“Dialogue” in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Japanese, Korean, and Russian Discourses

Carbaugh, Donal; Nuciforo, Elena V.; Saito, Makoto; Shin, Dong-shin

doi:10.1080/17513057.2011.557500

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What is involved in dialogue can vary by culture reflecting various assumptions that constitute communicative practices of dialogue (Carbaugh et al, 2011;Wierzbicka, 2006). There has been a call for empirical case studies of intercultural dialogue (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2014), to which this study attempts to contribute.…”

Section: Intercultural Dialoguementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Dialogue is widely recognized as a good thing, an important form of communication for mediating differences and tensions among peoples (Crosbie, 2014; Hoover, 2011). What is involved in dialogue can vary by culture reflecting various assumptions that constitute communicative practices of dialogue (Carbaugh et al, 2011; Wierzbicka, 2006). There has been a call for empirical case studies of intercultural dialogue (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2014), to which this study attempts to contribute.…”

Section: Intercultural Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dialogue on ‘1 Malaysia’: The uses of metadiscourse in ethnopolitical accounting

Buttny

Hashim

2014

Discourse & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A small group of ethnically and religiously diverse Malaysians were assembled to discuss the recent call for '1 Malaysia'. Dialogue is widely recognized as a worthwhile communication activity to deal with the differences and issues between peoples. But how does dialogue actually work in practice? In this study, metadiscourse -talk about talk -is used as a resource to get at how participants understand their own discussion, for example, 'we should have dialogues like this' or 'as long as we continue talking and trying to find solutions we have a hope of finding a solution if we don't talk there won't be any chance for a solution'. However, there are few instances of such metadiscourse in the over 2-hour discussion. More common are uses of metadiscourse to characterize prior problematic situations or what is needed in the future. Participants use metadiscourse as part of a narrative to give voice to self or other in making an argument about the situation in Malaysia. Participants' narratives show how ethnicity and religion have become politicized into an ethnopolitical conflict. Most of all of the narratives are of problematic ethnopolitical relations between the Malays and non-Malays. Yet giving voice to these sensitive issues in a mixed group also points to possible solutions and a way forward.

show abstract

Section: Intercultural Dialoguementioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Intercultural Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

Dialogue on ‘1 Malaysia’: The uses of metadiscourse in ethnopolitical accounting

Buttny

Hashim

2014

Discourse & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CuDA’s key term, communication practice , refers to a descriptive category that incorporates three social units. The first unit, communication act , provides ethnographers with a means to describe how people perform individual actions within a given situation (Carbaugh, 1989b, p. 98), and the variable ways in which all others present interpret that performance (Carbaugh, 2007b, pp. 2–4).…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

A Rational Solution to the Debate on the Critical Voice in Ethnography of Communication Research

Shavit¹

2023

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a way to transcend the debate on the critical voice in Ethnography of Communication (EOC) and qualitative communication research more broadly. First, it demonstrates how EOC’s epistemological paradigm may prevent ethnographers from understanding their subjects fully. Secondly, the article offers a Weberian approach to rational interpretation as a resolution, replacing the concept of “culture” as an a priori explanandum with “practical rationality”. This move demonstrates the feasibility of a unified method in the social sciences capable of dismantling the artificial divide between interpretive and post-positivist philosophies and research designs. Finally, the article provides an illustration of the proposed approach based on some ethnographic data from a volunteer setting of open-source civic software production in Israel.

show abstract

“…As Wiesand also notes (2008) such an approach potentially reduces intergroup dialogue to an activity with fixed ends rather than an interactive communication process whose parameters are constantly evolving and will sometimes produce interim or 'hybrid' results. Further criticism of the positivist approach concerns the manner in which communication (and dialogue) is defined and how it is understood from the perspective of contrasting cultural positions (Carbaugh et al 2011).…”

Section: Positioning Intergroup Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

Intergroup Dialogue: a Theoretical Positioning

Atkinson¹

2013

JDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been premised that group based dialogue may be viewed as a face-to-face facilitated conversation between members of two or more social identity groups for the purpose of new levels of understanding, relating, and action. Beyond this superficial meaning however intergroup dialogue exhibits a number of definitional and thereby theoretical inconsistencies leading to confusion and lack of clarity regarding the term. Concerns regarding what constitutes a group and of dialogue vie with issues of power to create a diversity of approaches towards multivocal conversation. This paper suggests that a useful approach to understanding intergroup dialogue is to acknowledge that meanings will always be contested. Drawing on academic and empirical examples this paper explores and unpacks different influences and epistemologies that underpin conceptual understandings of both dialogue and of the group. It is noted that group membership may be classified according to positivistic, critical or constructivist orientations while dialogue, although not so epistemologically differentiated, nevertheless draws on diverse scholarly conceptualisations from which it is defined and presented. The paper concludes through acknowledging that our understanding of dialogue itself is an ongoing project involving meaningful interactions across difference.

show abstract

“Dialogue” in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Japanese, Korean, and Russian Discourses

Cited by 15 publications

References 11 publications

Dialogue on ‘1 Malaysia’: The uses of metadiscourse in ethnopolitical accounting

Dialogue on ‘1 Malaysia’: The uses of metadiscourse in ethnopolitical accounting

A Rational Solution to the Debate on the Critical Voice in Ethnography of Communication Research

Intergroup Dialogue: a Theoretical Positioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About